AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy
Petitioner-conductor on attaining the age of superannuation and having retired from service of the respondent-Road Transport Corporation filed an application No. 9/2007 before the Labour "Court/'' Chikmagalur invoking Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short ID Act'' claiming Rs. 1,66,337.38 being wages for having served the Corporation on weekly holidays from 1.1.1996 to 30.7.2006. That application was opposed by filing statement of objections of the respondent-Corporation, on appearance.
Parties having entered trial, examined witnesses and marked documents, Labour Court having regard to the material on record, more appropriately the wage slips Exs. P12-45 disclosing payment of wages including allowance, night out allowance, etc. and Exs. P46 to 115 disclosing payment of overtime/double wages and also for working on holidays, coupled with the timetable Ex. R2, of Sakaleshpura depot disclosing that the petitioner discharged duties on route Sakaleshpur-Bangalore for a continuous period of 10 years as it was convenient for him to stay at Bangalore with his family enabling him to 24 hours off duty, after every trip in a day, in other words worked only for 15 days in a month, declined to accept the plea of the petitioner. In addition Labour court observed that petitioner had non chosen to putforth his claim at the earliest point of time and aid so 10 years post retirement and accordingly by order dt. 5.3.2011 dismissed the application. Hence this petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order impugned, undoubtedly the Labour court pains takingly examined every document marked in evidence for the petitioner and the respondent and in great elaboration at paragraphs 15 to 19 recorded reasons and findings for the rejection of the claim. The conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court, on facts, are not shown to suffer from any legal infirmity, and hence the order impugned does not call for interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Petition devoid of merit is rejected.